Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2191

control, N = 1101

treatment, N = 1091

p-value2

age

217

51.05 ± 12.89 (23 - 75)

50.47 ± 13.26 (23 - 75)

51.62 ± 12.54 (28 - 73)

0.512

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

219

0.626

f

178 (81%)

88 (80%)

90 (83%)

m

41 (19%)

22 (20%)

19 (17%)

occupation

219

0.692

day_training

6 (2.7%)

2 (1.8%)

4 (3.7%)

full_time

25 (11%)

13 (12%)

12 (11%)

homemaker

30 (14%)

15 (14%)

15 (14%)

other

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.8%)

part_time

41 (19%)

22 (20%)

19 (17%)

retired

51 (23%)

23 (21%)

28 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.7%)

4 (3.6%)

4 (3.7%)

shelter

2 (0.9%)

2 (1.8%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.8%)

t_and_e

4 (1.8%)

3 (2.7%)

1 (0.9%)

unemploy

48 (22%)

26 (24%)

22 (20%)

marital

219

0.977

cohabitation

1 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.9%)

divore

24 (11%)

13 (12%)

11 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.8%)

2 (1.8%)

2 (1.8%)

married

68 (31%)

32 (29%)

36 (33%)

none

104 (47%)

53 (48%)

51 (47%)

seperation

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.8%)

1 (0.9%)

widow

15 (6.8%)

8 (7.3%)

7 (6.4%)

edu

219

0.512

bachelor

47 (21%)

20 (18%)

27 (25%)

diploma

38 (17%)

24 (22%)

14 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.3%)

4 (3.6%)

1 (0.9%)

postgraduate

15 (6.8%)

8 (7.3%)

7 (6.4%)

primary

18 (8.2%)

9 (8.2%)

9 (8.3%)

secondary_1_3

25 (11%)

13 (12%)

12 (11%)

secondary_4_5

61 (28%)

28 (25%)

33 (30%)

secondary_6_7

10 (4.6%)

4 (3.6%)

6 (5.5%)

fam_income

219

0.791

10001_12000

7 (3.2%)

2 (1.8%)

5 (4.6%)

12001_14000

11 (5.0%)

4 (3.6%)

7 (6.4%)

14001_16000

10 (4.6%)

4 (3.6%)

6 (5.5%)

16001_18000

5 (2.3%)

3 (2.7%)

2 (1.8%)

18001_20000

10 (4.6%)

7 (6.4%)

3 (2.8%)

20001_above

39 (18%)

23 (21%)

16 (15%)

2001_4000

32 (15%)

16 (15%)

16 (15%)

4001_6000

28 (13%)

12 (11%)

16 (15%)

6001_8000

20 (9.1%)

11 (10%)

9 (8.3%)

8001_10000

17 (7.8%)

9 (8.2%)

8 (7.3%)

below_2000

40 (18%)

19 (17%)

21 (19%)

medication

219

196 (89%)

98 (89%)

98 (90%)

0.844

onset_duration

217

15.30 ± 10.85 (0 - 63)

14.76 ± 10.97 (0 - 56)

15.86 ± 10.74 (0 - 63)

0.456

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

215

35.85 ± 14.45 (-18 - 72)

35.63 ± 13.24 (10 - 72)

36.07 ± 15.64 (-18 - 68)

0.824

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2191

control, N = 1101

treatment, N = 1091

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

219

3.15 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.17 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.12 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.750

recovery_stage_b

219

17.90 ± 2.84 (8 - 24)

18.06 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)

17.74 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.405

ras_confidence

219

29.86 ± 5.48 (9 - 45)

29.79 ± 5.47 (14 - 45)

29.94 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)

0.845

ras_willingness

219

11.65 ± 2.10 (3 - 15)

11.70 ± 2.01 (5 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.20 (3 - 15)

0.740

ras_goal

219

17.39 ± 3.27 (5 - 25)

17.26 ± 3.23 (7 - 25)

17.52 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

0.558

ras_reliance

219

13.22 ± 2.89 (4 - 20)

13.09 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.35 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.510

ras_domination

219

9.82 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

10.05 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

9.58 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)

0.144

symptom

219

30.38 ± 9.66 (14 - 70)

30.75 ± 10.17 (14 - 70)

30.00 ± 9.14 (14 - 56)

0.564

slof_work

219

22.25 ± 4.73 (10 - 30)

22.36 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.13 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)

0.714

slof_relationship

219

25.19 ± 5.73 (9 - 35)

24.72 ± 5.85 (9 - 35)

25.67 ± 5.60 (11 - 35)

0.220

satisfaction

219

20.35 ± 7.06 (5 - 35)

19.77 ± 6.98 (5 - 35)

20.93 ± 7.13 (5 - 35)

0.227

mhc_emotional

219

10.77 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

10.66 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

0.681

mhc_social

219

15.27 ± 5.81 (5 - 30)

15.10 ± 5.91 (5 - 30)

15.45 ± 5.74 (5 - 30)

0.657

mhc_psychological

219

21.79 ± 6.69 (6 - 36)

21.59 ± 6.62 (7 - 36)

22.00 ± 6.79 (6 - 36)

0.652

resilisnce

219

16.60 ± 4.56 (6 - 30)

16.07 ± 4.24 (6 - 30)

17.14 ± 4.83 (6 - 30)

0.084

social_provision

219

13.60 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.30 ± 2.73 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

0.109

els_value_living

219

16.99 ± 3.13 (5 - 25)

16.84 ± 3.11 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)

0.464

els_life_fulfill

219

12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

12.47 ± 3.30 (5 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.28 (4 - 20)

0.159

els

219

29.78 ± 5.87 (9 - 45)

29.31 ± 5.85 (11 - 45)

30.25 ± 5.89 (9 - 45)

0.238

social_connect

219

26.72 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)

27.20 ± 8.97 (8 - 48)

26.23 ± 9.26 (8 - 48)

0.432

shs_agency

219

14.40 ± 4.97 (3 - 24)

13.92 ± 4.85 (3 - 24)

14.88 ± 5.06 (3 - 24)

0.152

shs_pathway

219

15.92 ± 4.13 (3 - 24)

15.53 ± 4.25 (3 - 24)

16.32 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)

0.155

shs

219

30.32 ± 8.71 (6 - 48)

29.45 ± 8.75 (6 - 48)

31.20 ± 8.62 (7 - 48)

0.136

esteem

219

12.73 ± 1.65 (9 - 20)

12.74 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)

12.72 ± 1.55 (10 - 20)

0.926

mlq_search

219

14.78 ± 3.48 (3 - 21)

14.45 ± 3.47 (4 - 21)

15.11 ± 3.48 (3 - 21)

0.164

mlq_presence

219

13.43 ± 4.30 (3 - 21)

13.28 ± 4.14 (3 - 21)

13.59 ± 4.47 (3 - 21)

0.600

mlq

219

28.21 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)

27.74 ± 6.80 (7 - 42)

28.70 ± 7.09 (6 - 42)

0.307

empower

219

19.26 ± 4.41 (6 - 30)

19.02 ± 4.33 (9 - 30)

19.51 ± 4.51 (6 - 30)

0.407

ismi_resistance

219

14.37 ± 2.62 (5 - 20)

14.37 ± 2.42 (6 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.82 (5 - 20)

0.966

ismi_discrimation

219

11.74 ± 3.06 (5 - 20)

11.87 ± 2.98 (5 - 20)

11.60 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)

0.505

sss_affective

219

10.36 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.35 ± 3.58 (3 - 18)

10.37 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

0.965

sss_behavior

219

10.00 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.83 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

0.480

sss_cognitive

219

8.71 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

8.65 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

8.77 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.805

sss

219

29.07 ± 10.40 (9 - 54)

29.17 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

28.96 ± 10.49 (9 - 54)

0.882

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.17

0.117

2.94, 3.40

group

control

treatment

-0.053

0.166

-0.379, 0.272

0.748

time_point

1st

2nd

0.106

0.158

-0.204, 0.415

0.504

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.178

0.231

-0.274, 0.631

0.441

Pseudo R square

0.007

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.1

0.278

17.5, 18.6

group

control

treatment

-0.321

0.394

-1.09, 0.452

0.417

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.279

0.307

-0.881, 0.323

0.366

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.837

0.450

-0.046, 1.72

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.529

28.8, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.145

0.750

-1.32, 1.61

0.847

time_point

1st

2nd

0.569

0.494

-0.398, 1.54

0.251

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.61

0.724

0.193, 3.03

0.028

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.198

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

-0.094

0.280

-0.644, 0.455

0.736

time_point

1st

2nd

0.057

0.212

-0.357, 0.472

0.787

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.503

0.310

-0.105, 1.11

0.107

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.314

16.6, 17.9

group

control

treatment

0.259

0.445

-0.613, 1.13

0.561

time_point

1st

2nd

0.209

0.313

-0.405, 0.823

0.506

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.856

0.460

-0.045, 1.76

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.280

12.5, 13.6

group

control

treatment

0.258

0.396

-0.519, 1.03

0.516

time_point

1st

2nd

0.377

0.273

-0.157, 0.912

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.436

0.400

-0.348, 1.22

0.278

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.1

0.230

9.60, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.477

0.326

-1.12, 0.162

0.145

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.058

0.265

-0.577, 0.460

0.825

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.06

0.388

0.305, 1.82

0.007

Pseudo R square

0.019

symptom

(Intercept)

30.8

0.919

29.0, 32.6

group

control

treatment

-0.755

1.302

-3.31, 1.80

0.563

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.34

0.741

-2.79, 0.113

0.073

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.994

1.088

-3.13, 1.14

0.363

Pseudo R square

0.011

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.447

21.5, 23.2

group

control

treatment

-0.235

0.634

-1.48, 1.01

0.711

time_point

1st

2nd

0.138

0.430

-0.704, 0.981

0.748

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.526

0.631

-0.710, 1.76

0.406

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.547

23.6, 25.8

group

control

treatment

0.952

0.775

-0.567, 2.47

0.221

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.155

0.544

-1.22, 0.911

0.776

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.874

0.798

-0.689, 2.44

0.275

Pseudo R square

0.013

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.8

0.676

18.4, 21.1

group

control

treatment

1.15

0.958

-0.723, 3.03

0.229

time_point

1st

2nd

0.828

0.624

-0.395, 2.05

0.187

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.915

0.916

-0.880, 2.71

0.320

Pseudo R square

0.018

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.359

9.96, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.208

0.508

-0.788, 1.20

0.683

time_point

1st

2nd

0.345

0.306

-0.254, 0.945

0.261

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.081

0.449

-0.799, 0.962

0.857

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.571

14.0, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.350

0.809

-1.24, 1.93

0.666

time_point

1st

2nd

0.777

0.540

-0.281, 1.83

0.152

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.126

0.792

-1.43, 1.68

0.874

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.659

20.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

0.409

0.933

-1.42, 2.24

0.662

time_point

1st

2nd

0.988

0.585

-0.159, 2.13

0.094

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.005

0.859

-1.69, 1.68

0.995

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.425

15.2, 16.9

group

control

treatment

1.06

0.603

-0.117, 2.25

0.078

time_point

1st

2nd

0.737

0.450

-0.145, 1.62

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.842

0.659

-0.450, 2.13

0.204

Pseudo R square

0.037

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.273

12.8, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.608

0.388

-0.151, 1.37

0.118

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.228

0.279

-0.774, 0.318

0.414

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.567

0.409

-0.233, 1.37

0.167

Pseudo R square

0.021

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.303

16.2, 17.4

group

control

treatment

0.310

0.430

-0.532, 1.15

0.471

time_point

1st

2nd

0.273

0.307

-0.328, 0.874

0.375

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.529

0.450

-0.353, 1.41

0.242

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.5

0.312

11.9, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.628

0.443

-0.239, 1.50

0.157

time_point

1st

2nd

0.208

0.292

-0.365, 0.780

0.479

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.509

0.429

-0.331, 1.35

0.237

Pseudo R square

0.020

els

(Intercept)

29.3

0.567

28.2, 30.4

group

control

treatment

0.939

0.804

-0.638, 2.51

0.244

time_point

1st

2nd

0.506

0.515

-0.503, 1.52

0.327

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.987

0.756

-0.495, 2.47

0.194

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.2

0.881

25.5, 28.9

group

control

treatment

-0.971

1.249

-3.42, 1.48

0.438

time_point

1st

2nd

0.219

0.785

-1.32, 1.76

0.781

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.60

1.152

-5.85, -1.34

0.002

Pseudo R square

0.027

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.476

13.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.963

0.675

-0.361, 2.29

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.517

0.413

-0.293, 1.33

0.213

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.410

0.607

-0.780, 1.60

0.501

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.5

0.387

14.8, 16.3

group

control

treatment

0.794

0.548

-0.281, 1.87

0.149

time_point

1st

2nd

0.618

0.368

-0.102, 1.34

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.308

0.540

-0.749, 1.37

0.569

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.824

27.8, 31.1

group

control

treatment

1.76

1.168

-0.533, 4.05

0.134

time_point

1st

2nd

1.13

0.720

-0.277, 2.55

0.118

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.714

1.058

-1.36, 2.79

0.501

Pseudo R square

0.019

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.151

12.4, 13.0

group

control

treatment

-0.021

0.214

-0.440, 0.399

0.923

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.097

0.200

-0.489, 0.296

0.630

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.084

0.293

-0.489, 0.658

0.773

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.331

13.8, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.656

0.469

-0.264, 1.57

0.163

time_point

1st

2nd

0.664

0.383

-0.087, 1.42

0.085

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.620

0.561

-1.72, 0.481

0.271

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.404

12.5, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.305

0.572

-0.816, 1.43

0.594

time_point

1st

2nd

0.707

0.434

-0.144, 1.56

0.106

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.062

0.636

-1.19, 1.31

0.922

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.663

26.4, 29.0

group

control

treatment

0.961

0.939

-0.880, 2.80

0.307

time_point

1st

2nd

1.37

0.739

-0.078, 2.82

0.066

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.539

1.083

-2.66, 1.58

0.619

Pseudo R square

0.009

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.427

18.2, 19.9

group

control

treatment

0.496

0.605

-0.690, 1.68

0.413

time_point

1st

2nd

1.01

0.410

0.210, 1.82

0.015

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.357

0.602

-1.54, 0.823

0.554

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.244

13.9, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.015

0.346

-0.694, 0.664

0.966

time_point

1st

2nd

0.415

0.292

-0.157, 0.987

0.157

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.425

0.427

-0.412, 1.26

0.321

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.293

11.3, 12.4

group

control

treatment

-0.276

0.416

-1.09, 0.538

0.507

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.565

0.353

-1.26, 0.127

0.112

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.383

0.517

-1.40, 0.630

0.460

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.3

0.348

9.66, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.022

0.493

-0.944, 0.987

0.965

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.396

0.316

-1.02, 0.224

0.213

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.678

0.465

-1.59, 0.233

0.147

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.351

9.49, 10.9

group

control

treatment

-0.356

0.497

-1.33, 0.618

0.474

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.574

0.330

-1.22, 0.072

0.084

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.173

0.484

-1.12, 0.775

0.721

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.65

0.350

7.96, 9.33

group

control

treatment

0.125

0.496

-0.848, 1.10

0.801

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.422

0.338

-1.08, 0.240

0.214

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.525

0.495

-1.50, 0.446

0.291

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss

(Intercept)

29.2

0.985

27.2, 31.1

group

control

treatment

-0.209

1.397

-2.95, 2.53

0.881

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.35

0.838

-3.00, 0.291

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.34

1.231

-3.75, 1.08

0.279

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.17 (95% CI [2.94, 3.40], t(330) = 27.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27], t(330) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.42], t(330) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63], t(330) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.06 (95% CI [17.52, 18.61], t(330) = 64.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.45], t(330) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.32], t(330) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.72], t(330) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.79 (95% CI [28.75, 30.83], t(330) = 56.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.61], t(330) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.54], t(330) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.19, 3.03], t(330) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.31, 12.09], t(330) = 59.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.45], t(330) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.47], t(330) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.11], t(330) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [16.65, 17.88], t(330) = 54.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.13], t(330) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.82], t(330) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.76], t(330) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.54, 13.64], t(330) = 46.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.03], t(330) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.91], t(330) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22], t(330) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.05 (95% CI [9.60, 10.51], t(330) = 43.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.16], t(330) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.46], t(330) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.30, 1.82], t(330) = 2.75, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.13, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.75 (95% CI [28.95, 32.55], t(330) = 33.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.31, 1.80], t(330) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.11], t(330) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.14], t(330) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.36 (95% CI [21.49, 23.24], t(330) = 50.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.01], t(330) = -0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.98], t(330) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.76], t(330) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.72 (95% CI [23.65, 25.79], t(330) = 45.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.57, 2.47], t(330) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.91], t(330) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.44], t(330) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.77 (95% CI [18.45, 21.10], t(330) = 29.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.03], t(330) = 1.20, p = 0.228; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.05], t(330) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.71], t(330) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.96, 11.37], t(330) = 29.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.20], t(330) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.95], t(330) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.96], t(330) = 0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.10 (95% CI [13.98, 16.22], t(330) = 26.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.93], t(330) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.83], t(330) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.68], t(330) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.59 (95% CI [20.30, 22.88], t(330) = 32.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.24], t(330) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.13], t(330) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.35e-03, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.68], t(330) = -6.23e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = -7.83e-04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.07 (95% CI [15.24, 16.91], t(330) = 37.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.25], t(330) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.62], t(330) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.13], t(330) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.76, 13.84], t(330) = 48.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.37], t(330) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32], t(330) = -0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.37], t(330) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.84 (95% CI [16.24, 17.43], t(330) = 55.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.15], t(330) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.87], t(330) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.41], t(330) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.47 (95% CI [11.86, 13.08], t(330) = 39.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.50], t(330) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.78], t(330) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.35], t(330) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.31 (95% CI [28.20, 30.42], t(330) = 51.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.51], t(330) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.52], t(330) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.47], t(330) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.20 (95% CI [25.47, 28.93], t(330) = 30.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-3.42, 1.48], t(330) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.76], t(330) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.60, 95% CI [-5.85, -1.34], t(330) = -3.12, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.98, 14.85], t(330) = 29.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.29], t(330) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.33], t(330) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.60], t(330) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.53 (95% CI [14.77, 16.29], t(330) = 40.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.87], t(330) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.34], t(330) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.37], t(330) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.45 (95% CI [27.83, 31.06], t(330) = 35.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-0.53, 4.05], t(330) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.55], t(330) = 1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.79], t(330) = 0.68, p = 0.500; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.63e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.74 (95% CI [12.44, 13.03], t(330) = 84.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40], t(330) = -0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.30], t(330) = -0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.66], t(330) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.45 (95% CI [13.81, 15.10], t(330) = 43.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.57], t(330) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.42], t(330) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.48], t(330) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.28 (95% CI [12.49, 14.07], t(330) = 32.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.43], t(330) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.56], t(330) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.31], t(330) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [26.44, 29.04], t(330) = 41.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.80], t(330) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.82], t(330) = 1.86, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.58], t(330) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.02 (95% CI [18.18, 19.85], t(330) = 44.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.68], t(330) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.21, 1.82], t(330) = 2.47, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.05, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.82], t(330) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.37 (95% CI [13.89, 14.85], t(330) = 58.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.66], t(330) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.99], t(330) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.26], t(330) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.87 (95% CI [11.30, 12.45], t(330) = 40.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.54], t(330) = -0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.13], t(330) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.63], t(330) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.35 (95% CI [9.66, 11.03], t(330) = 29.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.99], t(330) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 5.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.22], t(330) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.23], t(330) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.49, 10.87], t(330) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.62], t(330) = -0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.07], t(330) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.78], t(330) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.96, 9.33], t(330) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.10], t(330) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.24], t(330) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.45], t(330) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.24, 31.10], t(330) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.53], t(330) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.00, 0.29], t(330) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.75, 1.08], t(330) = -1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,076.382

1,087.833

-535.191

1,070.382

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,079.089

1,101.992

-533.545

1,067.089

3.293

3

0.349

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,621.963

1,633.414

-807.981

1,615.963

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,624.194

1,647.097

-806.097

1,612.194

3.768

3

0.288

ras_confidence

null

3

2,033.644

2,045.095

-1,013.822

2,027.644

ras_confidence

random

6

2,021.587

2,044.490

-1,004.793

2,009.587

18.057

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,388.637

1,400.088

-691.318

1,382.637

ras_willingness

random

6

1,388.412

1,411.315

-688.206

1,376.412

6.225

3

0.101

ras_goal

null

3

1,690.894

1,702.345

-842.447

1,684.894

ras_goal

random

6

1,685.444

1,708.346

-836.722

1,673.444

11.450

3

0.010

ras_reliance

null

3

1,606.945

1,618.396

-800.472

1,600.945

ras_reliance

random

6

1,602.589

1,625.492

-795.295

1,590.589

10.356

3

0.016

ras_domination

null

3

1,510.913

1,522.364

-752.457

1,504.913

ras_domination

random

6

1,504.247

1,527.150

-746.124

1,492.247

12.666

3

0.005

symptom

null

3

2,367.321

2,378.772

-1,180.661

2,361.321

symptom

random

6

2,361.301

2,384.203

-1,174.650

2,349.301

12.020

3

0.007

slof_work

null

3

1,911.156

1,922.607

-952.578

1,905.156

slof_work

random

6

1,914.933

1,937.835

-951.466

1,902.933

2.223

3

0.527

slof_relationship

null

3

2,055.398

2,066.849

-1,024.699

2,049.398

slof_relationship

random

6

2,057.183

2,080.086

-1,022.592

2,045.183

4.214

3

0.239

satisfaction

null

3

2,188.577

2,200.029

-1,091.289

2,182.577

satisfaction

random

6

2,183.974

2,206.876

-1,085.987

2,171.974

10.604

3

0.014

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,738.578

1,750.029

-866.289

1,732.578

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,741.411

1,764.313

-864.705

1,729.411

3.167

3

0.367

mhc_social

null

3

2,074.168

2,085.620

-1,034.084

2,068.168

mhc_social

random

6

2,075.532

2,098.434

-1,031.766

2,063.532

4.637

3

0.200

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,158.012

2,169.463

-1,076.006

2,152.012

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,158.601

2,181.503

-1,073.300

2,146.601

5.411

3

0.144

resilisnce

null

3

1,912.845

1,924.296

-953.422

1,906.845

resilisnce

random

6

1,900.928

1,923.831

-944.464

1,888.928

17.917

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,596.770

1,608.221

-795.385

1,590.770

social_provision

random

6

1,596.467

1,619.370

-792.233

1,584.467

6.303

3

0.098

els_value_living

null

3

1,666.723

1,678.174

-830.361

1,660.723

els_value_living

random

6

1,664.848

1,687.750

-826.424

1,652.848

7.875

3

0.049

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,670.841

1,682.292

-832.420

1,664.841

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,667.998

1,690.901

-827.999

1,655.998

8.842

3

0.031

els

null

3

2,067.467

2,078.918

-1,030.734

2,061.467

els

random

6

2,062.990

2,085.893

-1,025.495

2,050.990

10.477

3

0.015

social_connect

null

3

2,366.784

2,378.236

-1,180.392

2,360.784

social_connect

random

6

2,354.791

2,377.694

-1,171.396

2,342.791

17.993

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

1,938.363

1,949.815

-966.182

1,932.363

shs_agency

random

6

1,935.946

1,958.849

-961.973

1,923.946

8.417

3

0.038

shs_pathway

null

3

1,820.139

1,831.590

-907.069

1,814.139

shs_pathway

random

6

1,815.300

1,838.202

-901.650

1,803.300

10.839

3

0.013

shs

null

3

2,310.531

2,321.982

-1,152.265

2,304.531

shs

random

6

2,305.683

2,328.586

-1,146.842

2,293.683

10.847

3

0.013

esteem

null

3

1,241.319

1,252.771

-617.660

1,235.319

esteem

random

6

1,247.079

1,269.982

-617.540

1,235.079

0.240

3

0.971

mlq_search

null

3

1,748.213

1,759.665

-871.107

1,742.213

mlq_search

random

6

1,750.088

1,772.991

-869.044

1,738.088

4.125

3

0.248

mlq_presence

null

3

1,868.962

1,880.413

-931.481

1,862.962

mlq_presence

random

6

1,869.314

1,892.217

-928.657

1,857.314

5.647

3

0.130

mlq

null

3

2,208.811

2,220.262

-1,101.405

2,202.811

mlq

random

6

2,209.545

2,232.448

-1,098.773

2,197.545

5.265

3

0.153

empower

null

3

1,886.377

1,897.829

-940.189

1,880.377

empower

random

6

1,883.827

1,906.730

-935.914

1,871.827

8.550

3

0.036

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,555.155

1,566.606

-774.578

1,549.155

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,551.887

1,574.790

-769.943

1,539.887

9.268

3

0.026

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,680.014

1,691.466

-837.007

1,674.014

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,676.302

1,699.205

-832.151

1,664.302

9.712

3

0.021

sss_affective

null

3

1,739.929

1,751.380

-866.964

1,733.929

sss_affective

random

6

1,734.436

1,757.338

-861.218

1,722.436

11.493

3

0.009

sss_behavior

null

3

1,749.020

1,760.472

-871.510

1,743.020

sss_behavior

random

6

1,746.927

1,769.830

-867.464

1,734.927

8.093

3

0.044

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,753.723

1,765.174

-873.862

1,747.723

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,751.370

1,774.272

-869.685

1,739.370

8.353

3

0.039

sss

null

3

2,425.543

2,436.995

-1,209.772

2,419.543

sss

random

6

2,420.038

2,442.941

-1,204.019

2,408.038

11.505

3

0.009

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

110

3.17 ± 1.23

109

3.12 ± 1.23

0.748

0.056

recovery_stage_a

2nd

63

3.28 ± 1.19

-0.111

54

3.40 ± 1.18

-0.299

0.570

-0.132

recovery_stage_b

1st

110

18.06 ± 2.92

109

17.74 ± 2.92

0.417

0.178

recovery_stage_b

2nd

63

17.78 ± 2.67

0.155

54

18.30 ± 2.62

-0.310

0.293

-0.287

ras_confidence

1st

110

29.79 ± 5.55

109

29.94 ± 5.55

0.847

-0.051

ras_confidence

2nd

63

30.36 ± 4.87

-0.200

54

32.12 ± 4.73

-0.765

0.049

-0.616

ras_willingness

1st

110

11.70 ± 2.07

109

11.61 ± 2.07

0.736

0.077

ras_willingness

2nd

63

11.76 ± 1.88

-0.046

54

12.17 ± 1.85

-0.454

0.238

-0.331

ras_goal

1st

110

17.26 ± 3.29

109

17.52 ± 3.29

0.561

-0.143

ras_goal

2nd

63

17.47 ± 2.94

-0.115

54

18.59 ± 2.87

-0.585

0.039

-0.613

ras_reliance

1st

110

13.09 ± 2.93

109

13.35 ± 2.93

0.516

-0.163

ras_reliance

2nd

63

13.47 ± 2.60

-0.239

54

14.16 ± 2.54

-0.515

0.146

-0.439

ras_domination

1st

110

10.05 ± 2.41

109

9.58 ± 2.41

0.145

0.306

ras_domination

2nd

63

10.00 ± 2.23

0.038

54

10.58 ± 2.20

-0.647

0.153

-0.378

symptom

1st

110

30.75 ± 9.63

109

30.00 ± 9.63

0.563

0.178

symptom

2nd

63

29.42 ± 8.19

0.315

54

27.67 ± 7.91

0.549

0.242

0.412

slof_work

1st

110

22.36 ± 4.69

109

22.13 ± 4.69

0.711

0.095

slof_work

2nd

63

22.50 ± 4.14

-0.056

54

22.79 ± 4.04

-0.267

0.701

-0.117

slof_relationship

1st

110

24.72 ± 5.73

109

25.67 ± 5.73

0.221

-0.302

slof_relationship

2nd

63

24.56 ± 5.11

0.049

54

26.39 ± 4.99

-0.228

0.052

-0.579

satisfaction

1st

110

19.77 ± 7.09

109

20.93 ± 7.09

0.229

-0.320

satisfaction

2nd

63

20.60 ± 6.20

-0.230

54

22.67 ± 6.03

-0.484

0.069

-0.574

mhc_emotional

1st

110

10.66 ± 3.76

109

10.87 ± 3.76

0.683

-0.118

mhc_emotional

2nd

63

11.01 ± 3.24

-0.196

54

11.30 ± 3.13

-0.243

0.624

-0.164

mhc_social

1st

110

15.10 ± 5.99

109

15.45 ± 5.99

0.666

-0.112

mhc_social

2nd

63

15.88 ± 5.27

-0.249

54

16.35 ± 5.13

-0.289

0.622

-0.152

mhc_psychological

1st

110

21.59 ± 6.91

109

22.00 ± 6.91

0.662

-0.121

mhc_psychological

2nd

63

22.58 ± 5.99

-0.293

54

22.98 ± 5.81

-0.291

0.712

-0.120

resilisnce

1st

110

16.07 ± 4.46

109

17.14 ± 4.46

0.078

-0.406

resilisnce

2nd

63

16.81 ± 4.04

-0.281

54

18.72 ± 3.96

-0.602

0.010

-0.727

social_provision

1st

110

13.30 ± 2.87

109

13.91 ± 2.87

0.118

-0.376

social_provision

2nd

63

13.07 ± 2.57

0.141

54

14.25 ± 2.51

-0.209

0.013

-0.726

els_value_living

1st

110

16.84 ± 3.18

109

17.15 ± 3.18

0.471

-0.174

els_value_living

2nd

63

17.11 ± 2.85

-0.153

54

17.95 ± 2.78

-0.450

0.108

-0.471

els_life_fulfill

1st

110

12.47 ± 3.27

109

13.10 ± 3.27

0.157

-0.372

els_life_fulfill

2nd

63

12.68 ± 2.88

-0.123

54

13.82 ± 2.80

-0.424

0.031

-0.674

els

1st

110

29.31 ± 5.95

109

30.25 ± 5.95

0.244

-0.316

els

2nd

63

29.82 ± 5.19

-0.170

54

31.74 ± 5.04

-0.503

0.043

-0.648

social_connect

1st

110

27.20 ± 9.24

109

26.23 ± 9.24

0.438

0.215

social_connect

2nd

63

27.42 ± 8.03

-0.048

54

22.85 ± 7.78

0.747

0.002

1.010

shs_agency

1st

110

13.92 ± 5.00

109

14.88 ± 5.00

0.155

-0.405

shs_agency

2nd

63

14.44 ± 4.31

-0.218

54

15.81 ± 4.18

-0.390

0.082

-0.577

shs_pathway

1st

110

15.53 ± 4.06

109

16.32 ± 4.06

0.149

-0.373

shs_pathway

2nd

63

16.15 ± 3.58

-0.291

54

17.25 ± 3.48

-0.435

0.093

-0.518

shs

1st

110

29.45 ± 8.64

109

31.20 ± 8.64

0.134

-0.424

shs

2nd

63

30.58 ± 7.47

-0.274

54

33.05 ± 7.24

-0.446

0.071

-0.596

esteem

1st

110

12.74 ± 1.58

109

12.72 ± 1.58

0.923

0.017

esteem

2nd

63

12.64 ± 1.53

0.081

54

12.70 ± 1.51

0.010

0.821

-0.053

mlq_search

1st

110

14.45 ± 3.47

109

15.11 ± 3.47

0.163

-0.291

mlq_search

2nd

63

15.12 ± 3.22

-0.295

54

15.15 ± 3.17

-0.020

0.952

-0.016

mlq_presence

1st

110

13.28 ± 4.23

109

13.59 ± 4.23

0.594

-0.120

mlq_presence

2nd

63

13.99 ± 3.85

-0.279

54

14.36 ± 3.78

-0.303

0.603

-0.145

mlq

1st

110

27.74 ± 6.95

109

28.70 ± 6.95

0.307

-0.222

mlq

2nd

63

29.11 ± 6.38

-0.317

54

29.53 ± 6.27

-0.192

0.719

-0.097

empower

1st

110

19.02 ± 4.48

109

19.51 ± 4.48

0.413

-0.209

empower

2nd

63

20.03 ± 3.96

-0.427

54

20.17 ± 3.85

-0.277

0.848

-0.058

ismi_resistance

1st

110

14.37 ± 2.56

109

14.36 ± 2.56

0.966

0.009

ismi_resistance

2nd

63

14.79 ± 2.40

-0.241

54

15.20 ± 2.37

-0.488

0.353

-0.238

ismi_discrimation

1st

110

11.87 ± 3.08

109

11.60 ± 3.08

0.507

0.132

ismi_discrimation

2nd

63

11.31 ± 2.88

0.271

54

10.65 ± 2.85

0.455

0.215

0.316

sss_affective

1st

110

10.35 ± 3.65

109

10.37 ± 3.65

0.965

-0.012

sss_affective

2nd

63

9.95 ± 3.18

0.217

54

9.29 ± 3.09

0.588

0.260

0.359

sss_behavior

1st

110

10.18 ± 3.68

109

9.83 ± 3.68

0.474

0.187

sss_behavior

2nd

63

9.61 ± 3.23

0.301

54

9.08 ± 3.15

0.392

0.371

0.278

sss_cognitive

1st

110

8.65 ± 3.67

109

8.77 ± 3.67

0.801

-0.064

sss_cognitive

2nd

63

8.22 ± 3.25

0.216

54

7.82 ± 3.16

0.484

0.502

0.204

sss

1st

110

29.17 ± 10.33

109

28.96 ± 10.33

0.881

0.043

sss

2nd

63

27.82 ± 8.89

0.281

54

26.27 ± 8.60

0.558

0.340

0.321

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(299.87) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.27)

2st

t(330.17) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.56)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(268.16) = -0.81, p = 0.417, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.46)

2st

t(331.98) = 1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.48)

ras_confidence

1st

t(251.23) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.62)

2st

t(329.03) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.51)

ras_willingness

1st

t(264.40) = -0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.46)

2st

t(331.97) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.09)

ras_goal

1st

t(257.08) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.14)

2st

t(331.12) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.17)

ras_reliance

1st

t(254.99) = 0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.04)

2st

t(330.56) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.63)

ras_domination

1st

t(273.54) = -1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.17)

2st

t(331.73) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.40)

symptom

1st

t(241.48) = -0.58, p = 0.563, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.32 to 1.81)

2st

t(319.95) = -1.17, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-4.68 to 1.18)

slof_work

1st

t(253.70) = -0.37, p = 0.711, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.01)

2st

t(330.12) = 0.38, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.78)

slof_relationship

1st

t(256.77) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.48)

2st

t(331.05) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.67)

satisfaction

1st

t(250.42) = 1.20, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.73 to 3.04)

2st

t(328.58) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.16 to 4.30)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(244.80) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.21)

2st

t(324.11) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.45)

mhc_social

1st

t(252.31) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.94)

2st

t(329.55) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.37)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(247.56) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.25)

2st

t(326.65) = 0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.56)

resilisnce

1st

t(263.03) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.25)

2st

t(331.91) = 2.57, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.36)

social_provision

1st

t(259.13) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.37)

2st

t(331.51) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.10)

els_value_living

1st

t(258.37) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.16)

2st

t(331.38) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.87)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(251.41) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.50)

2st

t(329.11) = 2.16, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.17)

els

1st

t(249.10) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.52)

2st

t(327.77) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.79)

social_connect

1st

t(247.69) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.49)

2st

t(326.75) = -3.12, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-7.45 to -1.69)

shs_agency

1st

t(245.89) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.29)

2st

t(325.20) = 1.74, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.92)

shs_pathway

1st

t(252.73) = 1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.87)

2st

t(329.73) = 1.69, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.39)

shs

1st

t(246.41) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.54 to 4.06)

2st

t(325.68) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.21 to 5.15)

esteem

1st

t(296.61) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.40)

2st

t(330.25) = 0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.62)

mlq_search

1st

t(274.42) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.58)

2st

t(331.67) = 0.06, p = 0.952, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.20)

mlq_presence

1st

t(264.95) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.43)

2st

t(331.99) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.76)

mlq

1st

t(269.32) = 1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.81)

2st

t(331.94) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.73)

empower

1st

t(253.71) = 0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.69)

2st

t(330.12) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.56)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(278.90) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.67)

2st

t(331.34) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.28)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(280.10) = -0.66, p = 0.507, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.54)

2st

t(331.24) = -1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.39)

sss_affective

1st

t(249.31) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.99)

2st

t(327.91) = -1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.49)

sss_behavior

1st

t(251.89) = -0.72, p = 0.474, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.62)

2st

t(329.35) = -0.90, p = 0.371, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.63)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(253.95) = 0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.10)

2st

t(330.21) = -0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.77)

sss

1st

t(244.64) = -0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.54)

2st

t(323.94) = -0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.73 to 1.64)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(161.74) = 1.68, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.62)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(141.91) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.21)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(132.64) = 4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (1.13 to 3.23)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(139.80) = 2.47, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(135.78) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.73)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(134.65) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.39)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(144.99) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.44 to 1.57)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(127.51) = -2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.91 to -0.75)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(133.96) = 1.44, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.58)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(135.61) = 1.23, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.88)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(132.21) = 2.60, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.41 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(129.24) = 1.30, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.08)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(133.21) = 1.56, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.05)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(130.69) = 1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.23)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(139.04) = 3.27, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.62 to 2.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(136.89) = 1.13, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.93)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(136.48) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.45)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(132.73) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.34)

els

1st vs 2st

t(131.51) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.59)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(130.76) = -4.00, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-5.05 to -1.71)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(129.81) = 2.08, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.81)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(133.44) = 2.34, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.71)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(130.09) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.31 to 3.38)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(159.46) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.41)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(145.50) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.86)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(140.11) = 1.65, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.69)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(142.57) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.40)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(133.96) = 1.49, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.53)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(148.15) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.46)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(148.87) = -2.51, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.70 to -0.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(131.62) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.40)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(132.99) = -2.11, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.45 to -0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(134.09) = -2.61, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.66 to -0.23)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(129.16) = -2.98, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.48 to -0.90)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(153.67) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.42)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(137.42) = -0.91, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(129.77) = 1.15, p = 0.503, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.55)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(135.68) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(132.36) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.83)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(131.43) = 1.38, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.92)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(139.96) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(125.50) = -1.81, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(130.86) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.99)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(132.23) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.92)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(129.41) = 1.33, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.06)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(126.94) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.95)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(130.24) = 1.44, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.85)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(128.15) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.15)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(135.05) = 1.64, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.63)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(133.28) = -0.82, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(132.94) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.88)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(129.84) = 0.71, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.79)

els

1st vs 2st

t(128.83) = 0.98, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.53)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(128.21) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.77)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(127.42) = 1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.34)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(130.43) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.35)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(127.65) = 1.57, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.56)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(151.80) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.30)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(140.37) = 1.73, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.42)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(135.93) = 1.63, p = 0.213, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.57)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(137.96) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(130.86) = 2.47, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(142.55) = 1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.99)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(143.14) = -1.60, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.13)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(128.92) = -1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.23)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(130.06) = -1.74, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(130.97) = -1.25, p = 0.429, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.25)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(126.87) = -1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 0.31)

Plot

Clinical significance